If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Since the robber was fleeing then I agree that he should be awarded something for his pain and suffering. If I were on the jury I would award him $5 for all his problmes. Then on the counter suit by the people he held a knife to their throats I would award each on of them $1,000,000 for their pain, suffering and emotional distress. Also the business owner should get back any money or property the robber stole. That way it is a win-win situation for everyone.

I might charge the one that shot him 100 dollars for allowing him to get out of there alive.

By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Is it legal? It all depends on the laws of the particular state. Here in Texas. Absolutely.

By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

I have to ask how is he paying the attorney fees? He must have little to no money otherwise he would have never been robbing the store in the first place.

Almost certainly the attorney is doing the case on a contingency basis. He will keep a major portion (1/2, maybe 2/3) of the settlement, assuming he convinces the jury that his client is indeed a "victim".

I agree with Glock Fan. Even though I think the BG got what he deserved, (and deserved even more) it's going to be hard/impossible to convince a court/jury that it was a justifiable self defense shooting. The BG will go down for the RA .... and the store owner will most likely lose in court.

I agree with Glock Fan. Even though I think the BG got what he deserved, (and deserved even more) it's going to be hard/impossible to convince a court/jury that it was a justifiable self defense shooting. The BG will go down for the RA .... and the store owner will most likely lose in court.

I also agree with this sentiment. While of course it depends on the laws of the particular state, this shooting is definitely questionable, if only from an ethical perspective. I would have agreed wholeheartedly with the BG being shot while actually threatening someone, but shot in the back as he's leaving? Nah...

Also, what was the shooter waiting for? The guy brought a knife to a gunfight and could have easily been taken out at any time.

big assumption

Originally Posted by JJFlash

Also, what was the shooter waiting for? The guy brought a knife to a gunfight and could have easily been taken out at any time.

Not necessarily "easily taken out at any time". I'm assuming the shooter was keeping bystanders and safe directionality of fire in mind. I think in many cases it's better to not take the shot than to take a risky one in the direction of bystanders/innocents. We don't know the shooter's abilities, or what cover or lack of cover existed between the shooter and the BG... I think it's one of those "had to be there" situations. Without being there and seeing all of the details and conditions, it's impossible to determine what could or could not have been done differently or better. Lots of factors to take in.

Hey y'all: gotta agree with Glock Fan--you cannot shoot the perp in the back; as much as all of us would like to and I could not agree more, the threat is over and the use of a weapon is not called for anymore. As most have said, many states eliminate civil liability as a possibility in their CCW laws--in this case you get into the issue of whether the store owner had any business shooting and if he should not have the CCW/no civil liability goes out the window. Another example of how very very careful we all must be in examining our responsibilities, as set forth in the law, when having a gun in our possession.

Here are my thoughts on the situation. Take it how you wish, but I think a perp that is still on your property should still be shot in the back. Here's why:

1) He just robbed you in your house and/or place of business.
2) If you are contemplating armed action, the perp is most likely armed
3) If you just got robbed, he is running out the door still armed.
4) If he's still armed, there is a potential that your friends/family/customers/suppliers are outside the door and could encounter an armed robber
5) You could be just the first of many on a list of targets to get robbed

That being said, you are obviously in imminent fear for your life. Once the guy turns his back to leave, he is no longer an imminent threat to you, but then becomes an imminent threat to others.

In most C.D. states, imminent threat to the lives of others is a defensable use of deadly force. In our TN Carry class, we were taught that a shot in the back is still justifiable if the perp is within the confines of your building because you don't know his next intentions. Is he running out the door or to your child's bedroom? If he's running out the door, is there someone outside that he can attack?

I say, "Pool ze treegor oonteeel eet goes 'CLEECK'"

Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown